A
MATTER OF DEFINITION
A
MATTER OF DEFINITION
Toleration is not the
opposite of intoleration, but is the counterfeit of it.
Both are despotisms. The
one assumes to itself the right of
withholding the liberty of conscience, the
other of granting it.
Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man
by sonya hammond
Inherent in the definition of 'tolerance' as an act of 'putting up with' some view or belief, is the inference that not only are such views not one's own, they are in all probability regarded with disapproval from some lofty virtuous perch.
When the term is applied, as it too often is, as reluctant recognition of a 'feminine issue', it arrives pre-packaged with patronizing overtones and sighs of resignation that a perfectly reasonable male stance is being threatened by some recalcitrant female who unfortunately acquired the right to vote.
Such was the case recently when Bob the Dull, desperately tie-less in open-necked shirt and a sports jacket that obviously belongs to someone else, tossed cautious crumbs of concession in the paths of any pro-choice Republicans or even faltering Democrats whose grumbling might disturb the stolid vapidity of his slow motion race for his party's nomination.
While the entire nation must welcome almost any pronouncement suggesting that the Dull campaign might include an actual issue, this one has more than the usual ironic overtones.
Admittedly, a Senatus Interruptus call for a 'Declaration of Tolerance', provided a welcome hiatus to Republicans stressed out from preserving party unity under the soggy banner of the least charismatic presidential candidate-in-waiting since Chester A. Arthur.
Various party pundits, although desperate for agenda topics that would avoid what seemed destined to be a convention of comatose delegates, immediately protested that applying conciliatory terminology to the abortion issue not only violated the GOP platform, but was downright un-American.
The fact that these defenders of the faith were predominantly male should not surprise anyone. For reasons that must have left Freud thrashing with delight in his tomb, the most visible virulent opponents of a woman's right to choose anything except possibly diaper brands have historically been pinstripe-clad crusaders in power ties on a holy quest to control any female propensities to think for themselves.
The temerity of the notion that women might be legally entitled to control the destiny of their own bodies, let alone their health or even their lives, is apparently at odds with some primeval male right to fertilize at any cost, and has inspired everything from persistent attempts to enact legislature that would effectively reinstate back alley abortionists with butcher status, to homicide as the deterrent of choice against physicians currently attempting to practice medicine as currently guaranteed by the Supreme Court.
Certainly there are also women involved in this movement to subjugate an entire nation to their theory that freedom of choice is the immoral equivalent of murder. Even children are conscripted to brandish placards protesting issues they are often far too young to comprehend even in the unlikely event that their parents would allow them access to unbiased information. Given statistical percentages, however, it is to the men who call the party line shots that this Droll plea for 'tolerance' was addressed.
Nevertheless, surely only the rare political optimist can buy the notion that the old guard really believes that their candidate intended to soften the rigidity of a platform so carefully based on the 'values' of cardboard cutout families idealized in 19th century novels.
They understand, even as they grind their teeth in frustration, that this candidate's campaign has had all the excitement of a blind date with Pat Buchanan, and a temporary lapse into tolerance might be a small price to pay for injecting what could be perceived as 'relevance' into platform discussions.
So far all they have going is a constitutional amendment to protect the flag, which qualifies as an 'issue' only to those with nostalgia for the days of George the Shrub*. Almost everyone else has to admit that characterizing the flag as a symbol of America's 'self' is not likely to send even those who can figure out what that means into ecstatic fits of Dullmania.
Opposed even to condescension of those advocating the right to choose, conservative activists have instigated a counter movement demanding that convention delegates sign a pledge not to tamper with the anti-abortion plank. These misguided souls miss the point.
The Dull One has never advocated tolerance of abortion. He may have hoped that simply using 'tolerance' in a sentence might break the stultifying coma into which the media following his campaign had succumbed, or that bringing up a subject with which he is so visibly uncomfortable could convince a yawning electorate that a 'vision' of something, no matter how tenuous, constitutes courage.
For one brief moment this ploy did attract the elusive attention he craves. Unfortunately it came primarily from his own alarmed camp.
There may be those who actually believe that pro-choice advocates would appreciate being tolerated. These would be the same literacy-challenged vigilantes who interpret their adversaries as pro-abortion, somehow missing the definition of 'choice' as an act of choosing among various options.
Apparently they assume every definition must carry either 'right or wrong' implications, and cannot comprehend that 'pro-choice' neither identifies any ultimate decision nor patronizes the chooser for examining more than one point of view.
If he were truly looking for a way to resolve diversity within his party, Bob the Dull incorrectly defined his method.
What he and disgruntled platform committee members fail to understand is that one inherent quality of 'choice' is that very tolerance they find so difficult to bestow.
*Not to be confused with George the Twig, an obvious clone.
©sonya hammond, 1996